Mro--First Looks

After examining a couple of HIRISE images I have already found one or two that pass my preliminary qualitative artificiality tests for detail, proportion, and orientation. By "orientation" I don't mean that a face must be north oriented. It is true that the majority of the ones I've found are, but that may be because for the most part, that's how I'm looking. So we'll leave that aside as undecided. What I mean by orientation is simply that the parts or features of a face are where they are supposed to be, within an acceptable range.

The first (continuing my annoying habit of naming faces) is TRA008491675, Coprates Lady. This face is weak on detail but is the most conspicuous (and largest) face seen so far in HIRISE, and is also visible in one or two MOC images--I think. She is around 5-600 meters wide, which would be considered on the medium/small side for MOC images. [See next post for face size calculation method.]



Lady enlarged. You can see we are now going to be seeing more of the "components" of this possible art, and learn possibly something more about how they were constructed.



Next is possibly the most detailed of all of the images we have so far. Note the two triangular eyes of equal size and shape, and oriented and proportioned correctly; note, whites of both eyes, detailed cat-like, slit irises, triangular outline, triangular lids and lashes. Note also the detailed muzzle, and good shading, possible mouth, and possible wiskers. This face is apparently on a sloped, small mesa, and as such, may have been saved from the ravages of time better than it would have been if it was on flat ground, possibly because of harder surface material and the fact that accumulated debris can roll downhill and not encumber the face. Anyway, it's remarkably clear.

Here's TRA0008491675, Cat face.



Cat face indicated.



And enlarged, rotated straight up, and B and C adjusted. Cat face is around 100 meters wide. Resolution for 1675 is around 50 cm/p.

I want to clarify the previous post with some context and keys. I'm under no illusions that the new HIRISE images will settle the issue "once and for all." Many things are involved as well as many strongly held opinions and feelings. But this does begin to take the argument to a new level. Bear in mind that the following image ("Cat woman") may be only 50 meters wide. We are getting closer to detail on our scale and if we can see it up close, that may help. But no-one knows how this will eventually play out.

Context image for Cat face from TRA000849 1675 ( aprox. 100 m wide). The figure is on a small flat mesa on the edge or top of a yardang, butte, or outcropping.



Cat face key. My feeling is that this is meant to be seen from a relative distance.



Enlarged, we begin to question what we see.



I will call this type of possible art form a "subtlety face." Here is a key for what else I see therein: Cat woman (around 50 m wide).



[See above for dimensions corrections: TRA000849 1675, is 200 pixels per inch at 100 percent (screen), and 50 cm per pixel (actual), according to aquisition parameters, so, .5" measured on screeen = 100 pixels = 50 meters in the field.]

On a smaller scale is a blurry face in front of the woman's mouth, (and is the "nose" in the catface mosaic), which measured by the same method is 12.5 meters wide. I'll leave this one nameless because it lacks enough detail to have one.

no name.



key.

Riches discussion of the 3D Cydonia image in another thread, reminded me of some shading issues I left out. The following is from the HIRISE acquisition parameters for TRA0008491675.

“The complete image is centered at -12.4 degrees latitude, 290.7 degrees East longitude. The range to the target site was 259 km (162 miles). At this distance the image scale is 52 cm/pixel (with 2 x 2 binning) so objects ~156 cm across are resolved. The image shown here has been map-projected to 50 cm/pixel and north is up. The image was taken at a local Mars time of 3:30 PM and the scene is illuminated from the west with a solar incidence angle of 62.3 degrees, thus the sun was about 27.7 degrees above the horizon. At a solar longitude of 114.5 degrees, the season on Mars is Northern Summer / Southern Winter.”

This means that the sun is coming from the northwest, as is also apparent from the shading of the landforms in the above images. The small mesa on which the Catface mosaic is found is apparently flat, and in the shade. It is also obviously sloping somewhat down to the south, because if it was horizontal (i.e., level) it would still be in the sunlight. This would mean that the color (tone) variations in the feature are not due to natural shading (though there may be “shading” in the sense that the artist put it there). Note that the mosaic is light on the right side and dark on the left side, just happening to coincide with the tone of the depicted faces.

We need a HiRISE image of the Cydonia Face. Specifically, the "Platform" on the west side of the Face, running from the chin to the eye socket. Plus a good look at the base of the mesa all the way around. At 25cm/p. It might take a few images to get the whole face at that resolution, but a good starting point would be the Platform. What I'd really like to see at that resolution is the so-called "ruined buttresses" and "remnants of rooms", and a good look at the beard material.

Now <b>that </b> would be something!

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We need a HIRISE image of the Cydonia Face. [rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It may be that it gets imaged sometime soon, if only to try to falsify the artificiality hypothesis.

My current research indicates that the "debate" (not really even officially a debate in the mainstream because they refuse to take the possibility seriously) is not going to end any time soon. I am finding "faces" in the HIRISE images with similar detail (but on a smaller scale) to the MOC faces I have posted, and also an occasional interesting "non-face" object. But if those were not convincing, I suspect these will not be either. One difference however will be we can get closer to seeing how the images were made--if artificial, always a big IF.

I've also been doing more thinking about "how this can be." Putting thousands of faces on a dead planet seems insane to us. But think about it for a moment. If some distant future beings looked at artifacts from our earth civilization, they might find much of it equally strange. What would they make of, Rock and Roll, the "twist," or Rodney Dangerfield for example?

Maybe the ancient Planet V civilization had companies that sold plots on their dead moon, (Mars). Maybe you could have your portrait "painted" on Mars, an artwork that would last "for all time." You could get a small 25-meter etching for a modest price, or a bigger one if you had more to spend. If you were a “billionaire” or a “president,” you could have the Cydonia Face built in your image; if you were a movie star you could get “Nefertiti” or “Barbara” made.

That's just one model to explain the "crazy" pictures of faces on Mars

Neil.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />But if those were not convincing, I suspect these will not be either. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Yes, I don't think this issue will ever be settled on the basis of art. The new 25cm/p images convinced me of that, already. It's going to take some real artifact being found. For instance, if we got a 25cm/p image of the City of Parrotopia, and that beatle shaped tank really turned out to be a tank, with pipes coming out of it, and things of that nature.

Or if there's a door on the platform at Cydonia, that's partially opened, with a doorknob.

But I have serious doubts if the case will ever be decided by getting a closer look at large scale art.

rd